No abstract

Background and aims Facilitated Communication (FC) is a technique that involves a person with a disability pointing to letters, pictures, or objects on a keyboard or on a communication board, typically with physical support from a “facilitator”. Proponents claim that FC reveals previously undetected literacy and communication skills in people with communication disability. However, systematic reviews conducted up to 2014 reveal no evidence that the messages generated using FC are authored by the person with a disability. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the literature on FC published between 2014 and 2018 to inform the 2018 update of the 1995 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Position Statement on FC. Method A systematic search was undertaken to locate articles about FC in English published in the peer reviewed literature since 2014; and to classify these according to the study design for analysis. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were classified according to four categories of evidence: (a) quantitative experimental data pertaining to authorship, (b) quantitative descriptive data on messages produced using FC, (c) qualitative data, or (d) commentary material on FC. Main contribution In total, 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. There were no new empirical studies and no new descriptive quantitative studies addressing the authorship of messages delivered using FC. Three new qualitative studies qualified for inclusion; these did not first establish authorship. Of the 15 new commentary papers on FC located, 14 were critical and one was non-critical. The results could be used to inform the development or update of current position statements on FC held locally, nationally, and globally. Conclusion There are no new studies on authorship and there remains no evidence that FC is a valid form of communication for individuals with severe communication disabilities. There continue to be no studies available demonstrating that individuals with communication disabilities are the authors of the messages generated using FC. Furthermore, there is substantial peer-reviewed literature that is critical of FC and warns against its use. Implications FC continues to be contested in high profile court cases and its use promoted in school settings and workshops at university campuses in the US. Our empty systematic review will influence both clinical practice and future clinical guidance; most immediately the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Position Statement on FC and any future guidance issued by the 19 associations worldwide with positions against FC.

Inclusive programs involving toddlers with and without disabilities are becoming increasingly common. However, little research has evaluated the effects of specific aspects of inclusive services on participating children without disabilities. Due in part to parental concerns over a potentially reductive impact of manual signing on the communicative verbalizations of children without disabilities, we evaluated effects of manual signing by a classroom teacher on verbalizations of toddlers in an inclusive classroom. Manual signing was introduced sequentially by the teacher within ongoing verbal interactions with the toddlers in three play activities. Results indicated that teacher signing was accompanied by increases in communicative interactions involving signing with the teacher by each group of toddlers with and without disabilities. No reductive effects on communicative verbalizations were observed for any toddler group. These results offer support for using signing in an inclusive classroom without detrimental effects on the verbal functioning of children without disabilities. Future research should focus on conducting similar evaluations in other types of inclusive settings. DESCRIPTORS: toddlers, disabilities, inclusive settingsProviding supports and services in inclusive settings has become a major emphasis within early intervention programs for children with disabilities. Research evaluating inclusive services has focused on the benefits for children with disabilities, with relatively minimal attenAppreciation is expressed to Marsha Parsons for her assistance with manuscript preparation.

This study supports the idea that deficit specific, dichotic auditory training can remediate auditory and language deficits for children with ASD. More research is needed, with a group design and controls, in order to generalize these results to the larger ASD population.